Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly • Hacker News Board

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#31

Post by pcthrowaway » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 7:37 AM UTC

space_rock wrote: post #20

pcthrowaway wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but our problem is with proof of work, not crypto. I don't buy/use bitcoin any more because of this. Ethereum is moving (the sooner the better), and the only other PoW crypto I have a bit of is innovating PoW and (hopefully) becomes more environmentally friendly as a result. To be honest, I'm still unclear on if this is even possible, and if energy usage becomes significant relative to what it does, I would…

Ethereum uses pow. Their pos mechanism doesn't work and is a perpetual coming soon promise

The transition is not straightforward, and with what's at stake they absolutely need to take their time to get it right; they only get one chance.

I don't really use Ethereum, but I commend the devs for recognizing the problem years ago (before I was even aware of it) and taking steps to remedy the situation.

In the short-term, yes, it is incredibly wasteful (though recent changes have disincentivized mining somewhat, even with a bit of protest) and there are many other cryptocurrencies which are already proof of stake available. This year, hopefully, Ethereum will finally move to PoS.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#32

Post by meheleventyone » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 7:37 AM UTC

mantenpanther wrote: post #29

NFTs in the current form might be pretty useless as such (just a proof you "first purchased" a jpeg). But I think in the gaming space this will become huge and actually makes sense - use elements (items, characters, stats,...) and their history in different and independent games if the developer wants to integrate them. No lock-in and portable, not tied to game-specific accounts.

> if the developer wants to integrate them

What’s the incentive for the developer to do this? And more importantly how does my M4 rifle work in an epic fantasy role playing game?

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#33

Post by mathnmusic » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 7:40 AM UTC

mantenpanther wrote: post #29

NFTs in the current form might be pretty useless as such (just a proof you "first purchased" a jpeg). But I think in the gaming space this will become huge and actually makes sense - use elements (items, characters, stats,...) and their history in different and independent games if the developer wants to integrate them. No lock-in and portable, not tied to game-specific accounts.

What incentive does the developer of the second game have to support a portable account? We've seen how it played out with social networks. And if both game 1 and game 2 are by the same developer, then all that's needed for portability is a common account management service owned by the said developer.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#34

Post by bigdubs » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 7:40 AM UTC

oarabbus_ wrote: post #25

Nursie wrote: post #7

> It seems if you want to do crypto things without burning the planet down, you can. Right, but what if you consider it a bad thing to introduce an economic incentive for other people to burn the planet down? This is beyond a matter of personal choice, until and unless we all get our own personal planets.

Why do you consider the energy usage from GPUs mining cryptocurrency worse than energy usage from GPUs used for playing video games or rendering CGI graphics? Or porn? TV commercials? Why is it considered OK to generate massive amounts of pollution and expend tremendous energy flying beef from Japan to New York for people's consumption, when there are perfectly edible cuts of beef which require at most a short train…

This is not a good comparison because big mining farms are not equivalent to people playing video games at home.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#35

Post by smaudet » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 7:40 AM UTC

null_object wrote: post #6

Reichhardt wrote: post #3

The current fiat system (and the Governments that control it) are completely enslaved to the welfare (pension) and healthcare demands of baby boomers. These demands will only multiply as the populations age, until eventually consuming the host. You can already see this in countries like Italy, which are now in demographic death spirals. If we can craft a new financial system without spending 15%+ of our GDP and risin…

> The current fiat system (and the Governments that control it) are completely enslaved to the welfare (pension) and healthcare demands of baby boomers. If we can craft a new financial system without spending 15%+ of our GDP and rising on Pensions, even with some inefficiency its still worth it. Avoiding sales taxes, platform commissions, and income taxes is a major advantage. So you think the problem solved by crypt…

It only solves one problem, proof of work (or now I guess proof of stake).

It doesn't solve the political issue(s), for this reason most everything going on is harmful nonsense...

It could have been a part of a larger puzzle, but it's not and the people (seriously) involved with it are mostly scumbags and scammers, by the sound of it.

The legit businesses were a start but it never became a true payment contender, meanwhile those in power ran interference with competing payment systems (think apple or google pay, absolute nonsense I absolutely do not want) or propoganda "yeah this is illegal and fake and all worth nothing", which just hurt adoption.

Sounds like there is hope with Ethereum for it to actually be useful but Bitcoin is just a speculation heatsink at present. "In the future" it might work but there is a likely chance it will be gone in the future...

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#36

Post by mantenpanther » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 7:41 AM UTC

meheleventyone wrote: post #32

mantenpanther wrote: post #29

NFTs in the current form might be pretty useless as such (just a proof you "first purchased" a jpeg). But I think in the gaming space this will become huge and actually makes sense - use elements (items, characters, stats,...) and their history in different and independent games if the developer wants to integrate them. No lock-in and portable, not tied to game-specific accounts.

> if the developer wants to integrate them What’s the incentive for the developer to do this? And more importantly how does my M4 rifle work in an epic fantasy role playing game?

There might be many, this is a new field. A starter would be an existing userbase holding NFTs that enter the game. Different forms of monetarization (entering with NFTs, storing progress on the NFTs, marketplaces,...) might be a thing.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#37

Post by andy_andy_ » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 7:42 AM UTC

mantenpanther wrote: post #29

NFTs in the current form might be pretty useless as such (just a proof you "first purchased" a jpeg). But I think in the gaming space this will become huge and actually makes sense - use elements (items, characters, stats,...) and their history in different and independent games if the developer wants to integrate them. No lock-in and portable, not tied to game-specific accounts.

this runs into the boundary issue, though. getting your hat asset you bought in HatWars into your Garden Town save file isn’t trivial. the two games’ developers need to use the same assets or one needs to remake the asset. it’s cool for the player but work and money for the developers that i’m not sure provides them much value

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#38

Post by oarabbus_ » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 7:42 AM UTC

bigdubs wrote: post #34

oarabbus_ wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you consider the energy usage from GPUs mining cryptocurrency worse than energy usage from GPUs used for playing video games or rendering CGI graphics? Or porn? TV commercials? Why is it considered OK to generate massive amounts of pollution and expend tremendous energy flying beef from Japan to New York for people's consumption, when there are perfectly edible cuts of beef which require at most a short train…

This is not a good comparison because big mining farms are not equivalent to people playing video games at home.

So then is the problem "crypto currency mining" or "large bitcoin mining farms"? If that's the case it shouldn't be a problem if an individual wants to mine ethereum in their home.

Regardless there are 1.5+ billion gamers which does make it comparable. Video streaming in aggregate consumes an incredible amount of energy, as does non-essential plane travel. But people seem to not mind that. It's fine if people want to enjoy their movies or fly around the world for pleasure but it's a bit of cognitive dissonance.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#39

Post by mantenpanther » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 7:44 AM UTC

mathnmusic wrote: post #33

mantenpanther wrote: post #29

NFTs in the current form might be pretty useless as such (just a proof you "first purchased" a jpeg). But I think in the gaming space this will become huge and actually makes sense - use elements (items, characters, stats,...) and their history in different and independent games if the developer wants to integrate them. No lock-in and portable, not tied to game-specific accounts.

What incentive does the developer of the second game have to support a portable account? We've seen how it played out with social networks. And if both game 1 and game 2 are by the same developer, then all that's needed for portability is a common account management service owned by the said developer.

The NFTs might be independent of the game, maybe just exist as data structure on a neutral NFT smart contract with an existing network effect/reputation.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#40

Post by mathnmusic » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 7:44 AM UTC

notch656a wrote: post #24

namdnay wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so what, taxes now become a voluntary contribution to whatever charity you want to donate to? And you don't see any scale issues with that?

>taxes now become a voluntary contribution to whatever charity yes >And you don't see any scale issues with that? No. I see it vastly superior as private competition ensures people can donate to charities they find most effective, rather than monopolized government with little incentive for efficiency.

Is there a single economy that demonstrates this working effectively without taxes?